Sanghamitta wrote:all orthopaeds are seeing increasing numbers of people in their forties who have been jogging on a regular basis for a decade or more and who " have tremendous cardiac and pulmonary health but wrecked knees , hips, and ankles, and advanced osteoarthritis ". "They have", he added "the joints of sixty year olds ".

Of course... without shoes on I think you're more sensitive to how (and where) you land, and therefore you'll run much more gingerly, and with a better technique. With the pillows on you're just pounding on the ground, running with over-extended strides, oblivious to the effects that these have on your body. By the way, for most people, their arches will strength more if they regularly walk barefoot. Of course the exceptions are flat-footed and high arched... those are medical conditions.

I heard that flip-flops aren't good for feet... sandals (or barefooted) are better.

My feet flip flops

And crawling on the planets face,some insects called the human race.Lost in timeLost in spaceAnd meaning

"Michael Warburton's 2001 review of barefoot running in the journal Sports Science concluded that Running barefoot is associated with a substantially lower prevalence of acute injuries of the ankle and chronic injuries of the lower leg in developing countries, but well-designed studies of the effects of barefoot and shod running on injury are lacking. Laboratory studies show that the energy cost of running is reduced by about 4% when the feet are not shod. In spite of these apparent benefits, barefoot running is rare in competition, and there are no published controlled trials of the effects of running barefoot on simulated or real competitive performance.This study reviews much of the scientific literature that connects shod running to both acute injuries, such as ankle sprains, and chronic injuries, such as plantar fasciitis, Achilles tendinitis, shin splints, etc.In an article entitled "Is your prescription of distance running shoes evidence based?" in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, Craig Richards et al. determined that there is no evidence to support wearing "distance running shoes featuring elevated cushioned heels and pronation control systems tailored to the individual’s foot type." Richards found no studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that showed that running shoes either reduce injury rates or improve performance. In fact, Richards issued this challenge to running shoe manufacturers: "Is any running-shoe company prepared to claim that wearing their distance running shoes will decrease your risk of suffering musculoskeletal running injuries? Is any shoe manufacturer prepared to claim that wearing their running shoes will improve your distance running performance? If you are prepared to make these claims, where is your peer-reviewed data to back it up?"wiki

July 2010 Runaddicts.net: Barefoot Running Pros and Cons"Dr. Lesley Wolff who is a foot and ankle surgeon, a marathon runners coach, educated in biomechanics and the director of the San Francisco Bay Area Podiatry Group is completely against barefoot running. On top of that, he has been running in shoes for 35 years."

The barefoot benefits I've experienced are likely imagined; even Dr. Lesley Wolff thinks running barefoot is ridiculous, a huge risk. Is he claiming all the studies are wrong, 'because he says so'?

lojong1 wrote:July 2010 Runaddicts.net: Barefoot Running Pros and Cons"Dr. Lesley Wolff who is a foot and ankle surgeon, a marathon runners coach, educated in biomechanics and the director of the San Francisco Bay Area Podiatry Group is completely against barefoot running. On top of that, he has been running in shoes for 35 years."

The barefoot benefits I've experienced are likely imagined; even Dr. Lesley Wolff thinks running barefoot is ridiculous, a huge risk. Is he claiming all the studies are wrong, 'because he says so'?

Should that, in all honesty, be "on top of that" or "because of that"?

Two issues could be worth separating: 1. Is toe-strike running better for you than heel-strike running?My feeling is 'yes' because it stops the horrible jolt of the heel impact travelling all the way up through the knee, hip and spine at every stride. 2. Given the same running technique (i.e. toe-strike or heel-strike), is it better to run barefoot or with shoes?My feeling is that heel-strike running is clearly worse for you barefoot than shod, because you really need that heel cushion (and even then, you get injured long-term). I'm not at all sure whether toe-strike running is worse for you barefoot or shod.

I think that the two issues have been conflated in much of the discussion, both from DW members and from the authorities they are quoting.

I don't advocate long distance running; in fact I think it is destructive. And "jogging" is, in my view, a waste of time. Sprinting, on the other hand, is extremely beneficial. It requires an extreme burst of energy, which has far superior health effects when compared to steady-state exercises.Proper technique and flexibility is essential, however. One great thing about wearing shoes is that an incorrect "strike" will be mitigated. There is also what should be obvious: we rarely run on perfect surfaces. Good shoes can make a rough surface smoother--as far as our joints are concerned.

Honestly, I can't conjure up any reason to run without shoes. It just seems nonsensical.

If anyone wants to hear more about sprinting (or stair climbing--also excellent), I'm here to help.

Kim O'Hara wrote:My feeling is that heel-strike running is clearly worse for you barefoot than shod.

Heck ya, it feels so wrong. That's why after a couple barefoot heel strikes I stopped heel-striking altogether. Now soles can tolerate more hot, cold and rough surfaces; feet and legs are stronger; hip flexibility increased; back alignment so much better that I can finally lie down supinely without pain; no more monthly knee troubles; save money on footwear; don't need to wear smelly wet shoes around town on rainy days; no more plantar warts that used to plague me every year; not so easy to ignore foot sensation on contact with environment; able to switch between shod and barefoot anytime for whatever reason without fearing the environment. The only "drawback" is slowing down to pay more attention to where I step.

alan wrote:Good shoes can make a rough surface smoother--as far as our joints are concerned.

I've never walked a surface that could damage my joints unless I were to step inappropriately.

I decided to do my routine fast evening walk (6 kms) without the running shoes I usually wear (La Sportiva). I crossed the bitumen road noticing the hard uneven surface, walked along a concrete and gravel path, crossed the soccer fields feeling the lovely cool dew-wet grass, and arrived at the concrete bicycle/dog/walking path which runs alongside the forested Kedron Brook.http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidcco/3907102002/

All was well up to this point. This is a 3 metre wide concrete path running alongside the Brook for about 10 kilometres – which is purpose-built for walkers, pedal wheel chairs, runners, bikers, skaters, skate-boarders, and dogs on leads. Sometimes also an illegal rider on horseback. Lots of wild ducks, bush turkeys, turtles and fish in and around the larger pools in the creek, with various sorts of parrots flying in noisy gangs overhead.Bare feet and cement are O.K. for a while, and then blisters start to form on the sole. Lots of little sharp twigs on the unswept path stick in and cling to the bare sole.

And then there are the Queensland Curse … Bindieyehttp://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl= ... x=92&ty=83After wandering into a bindieye patch and taking five minutes to escape, ’ouching’ under my breath, and getting the prickles out of my feet, I walked the last kilometre with sandals on. Still have two blisters on the soles of my feet from the concrete path, and quite a few prickle holes from the bindis.

Back to shoes?

With mettaChris

---The trouble is that you think you have time------Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe------It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

Kim O'Hara wrote:Two issues could be worth separating: 1. Is toe-strike running better for you than heel-strike running?My feeling is 'yes' because it stops the horrible jolt of the heel impact travelling all the way up through the knee, hip and spine at every stride. 2. Given the same running technique (i.e. toe-strike or heel-strike), is it better to run barefoot or with shoes?My feeling is that heel-strike running is clearly worse for you barefoot than shod, because you really need that heel cushion (and even then, you get injured long-term). I'm not at all sure whether toe-strike running is worse for you barefoot or shod.

It's more like ball-to-heel running (same as barefoot walking). The toes are what keep you from rolling over, and when you're well balanced, you're light on your toes. Your foot is naturally angled to allow this to happen. Shoes disrupt this whole mechanism, and to compensate you end up running on your heels, or your toes... which are the two extremes.

There is a balance point between the ball and the heel, which is more or less centered in the arch. When you have your shoes on, you're disconnected from this. Why? Because a shoe fits to your foot (including its arch), and has a flat or rigid outer sole... which essentially turns you flat-footed. The only advantage you have over the actual flat-footed person is that this doesn't cause you any discomfort.

This is the main reason why you don't see practitioners in the martial arts or yoga wear shoes. (Getting the feel of toes would be a minor reason.) This balance point is very crucial. If you don't have any feeling of this, then your body is off-kilter. An experienced martial arts practitioner (like in Aikido, for example) is able to exploit this. When you have a pair of running shoes on, you're pretty much tilted forward. (You probably don't notice because you've become acclimated to it.)

To see this balance point, just stand on a flat ground, don't lock your knees, and then lift your toes. Shift a little bit till the weight are evenly distributed on the ball and the heel. This is your balance point. Ideally you would be balanced on this point all the time, anytime you're on a flat ground. You see the "horse stance" in martial arts... that is to develop your own connection to this point.

Cooran, 6km is pretty long for a first-time barefooted walk. Just take it easy.

beeblebrox wrote:It's more like ball-to-heel running (same as barefoot walking). The toes are what keep you from rolling over, and when you're well balanced, you're light on your toes. Your foot is naturally angled to allow this to happen. Shoes disrupt this whole mechanism, and to compensate you end up running on your heels, or your toes... which are the two extremes.

There is a balance point between the ball and the heel, which is more or less centered in the arch...

That's all pretty much what I was thinking, but a much better description - thanks.It follows that the shoes which disrupt the natural movement least will be light and flexible and cut low around the ankle area, like the classic canvas Dunlop tennis shoe, or moccasins. Right?Kim

Sanghamitta wrote:all orthopaeds are seeing increasing numbers of people in their forties who have been jogging on a regular basis for a decade or more and who " have tremendous cardiac and pulmonary health but wrecked knees , hips, and ankles, and advanced osteoarthritis ". "They have", he added "the joints of sixty year olds ".

Of course... without shoes on I think you're more sensitive to how (and where) you land, and therefore you'll run much more gingerly, and with a better technique. With the pillows on you're just pounding on the ground, running with over-extended strides, oblivious to the effects that these have on your body. By the way, for most people, their arches will strength more if they regularly walk barefoot. Of course the exceptions are flat-footed and high arched... those are medical conditions.

I heard that flip-flops aren't good for feet... sandals (or barefooted) are better.

I ran a lot as a kid [in summer]. I ran for fun, across the large, uneven lawn, down our long gravel driveway, up the hill in the orchard and back down again, out the winding field road and back. Barefoot mostly, shoes made it more difficult. I didn't like running in flip flops because the flip flopping slowed me down and made it awkward; too much foot dynamics involved in keeping them from flying off. Running in shoes caused sore feet and slowed me down, they don't allow the foot to curve as it is designed. I have never had problems with my skeletal structure. I am NOT one in a million.

Look under any vehicle and you will see that it is supported by leaf springs. These springs are designed similar to, but much simpler than a foot. The difference between running barefoot and running in shoes is like riding in a car as designed and riding in one without springs. That hammering you feel in the car without springs is similar to the hammering that you submit your skeleton and its joints to when running in shoes.

Today I jog a couple miles a day ~5 days/week. I wear "running" shoes. I pay special attention to how I land on the ball of my foot in order to make use of my springs. The shoes protect my 50 year old feet from dog-do and sharp pebbles and make my feet a little sore by not allowing them to flex as they should and keep them warm in cool/cold weather. I think when the weather warms next Spring I will go back to running as I did in my childhood days, bearing through that first week or two it takes to toughen up the feet to sharp pebbles and thistles.

Without having brainwashed us into thinking we need big dollar shoes in order to "protect" us from running, shoe companies and Tiger Woods would not make the big money that they do.

Kim O'Hara wrote:It follows that the shoes which disrupt the natural movement least will be light and flexible and cut low around the ankle area, like the classic canvas Dunlop tennis shoe, or moccasins. Right?

Moccasins might work, but not sure about the tennis shoes. There are actually some shoes that are designed for "barefoot" running. I never tried one, but they seem similar to thin track shoes, without padding.

One of them even have toes built in, but I think that's too much. Unfortunately these type of shoes seem to be way over-priced compared to the regular shoes, from my brief googling.

That's a great story by the way, Jeff.

Edited: Another option might be "Feiyue martial arts shoes", they cost only $15.

An episode of 'Weird or What' features the Mexican Tarahumara people--virtually all 50,000ish of them, not just one in a million--who run fast, far, often, and injury free over rough terrain with bare feet and sandals.

"With widely dispersed settlements, these people developed a tradition of long-distance running up to 435 miles (700 km) in one session, over a period of two days through their homeland of rough canyon country, for inter-village communication and transportation."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarahumara ... ic_prowess